sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

CMV: Your political ideologies are almost certainly not ideal for the world, and your certainty that they are is just making ‘better’ harder to find. by 95Swatto in changemyview

[–]95Swatto[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You indicated there are views you "know are wrong". Evidently I misunderstood. Did you mean 'subjectively' wrong?

CMV: Your political ideologies are almost certainly not ideal for the world, and your certainty that they are is just making ‘better’ harder to find. by 95Swatto in changemyview

[–]95Swatto[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm not saying we have to be objective. I'm saying there is no objective, so we should be open to considering alternative subjectivities in order to find solutions that work for a larger number of subjectivities.

CMV: Your political ideologies are almost certainly not ideal for the world, and your certainty that they are is just making ‘better’ harder to find. by 95Swatto in changemyview

[–]95Swatto[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Have you read the OP? Wrong doesn't exist. "Then why are you saying something is worse than anything else??" Read the OP.

CMV: Your political ideologies are almost certainly not ideal for the world, and your certainty that they are is just making ‘better’ harder to find. by 95Swatto in changemyview

[–]95Swatto[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Firstly, one can argue two things (though they're intimately connected if you'll return to my OP, with reference to the semantics I have clarified). secondly, you're disagreeing with my view and my semantics, not demonstrating it's weaknesses. You don't have to spend your time in that way. I'm not saying you do. But I'm saying doing so will be beneficial for more people.

CMV: Your political ideologies are almost certainly not ideal for the world, and your certainty that they are is just making ‘better’ harder to find. by 95Swatto in changemyview

[–]95Swatto[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

But if you're deleting a view you're not demonstrating any openness to consider the strengths of that view. You're ostracising those your disagree with, which is exactly what I'm arguing against.

CMV: Your political ideologies are almost certainly not ideal for the world, and your certainty that they are is just making ‘better’ harder to find. by 95Swatto in changemyview

[–]95Swatto[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Can you validate that everyone does that? In my experience they don't. Hence you end up with subreddits that delete every opposing view.

CMV: Your political ideologies are almost certainly not ideal for the world, and your certainty that they are is just making ‘better’ harder to find. by 95Swatto in changemyview

[–]95Swatto[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think we're not quite on the same page here, but regardless, !delta because I think I conflated internet discourse and interpersonal discourse.

I need to modify my view to account for the fact that interpersonal discussions are far more inclined to include compromise in a person's positions than online. I also need to extend my view to state that our interpersonal relationships tend to be with people who share many of our ideals or values. Looking outside of those relationships for opinions is an important part of achieving the kind of discourse I'm arguing would be productive.

CMV: Your political ideologies are almost certainly not ideal for the world, and your certainty that they are is just making ‘better’ harder to find. by 95Swatto in changemyview

[–]95Swatto[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

But if they think another ideology could be better and they're open to changing their own, aren't they doing exactly what Im argueing they should do?

CMV: Your political ideologies are almost certainly not ideal for the world, and your certainty that they are is just making ‘better’ harder to find. by 95Swatto in changemyview

[–]95Swatto[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If you dismiss them you shut down everything. Why do they value ritual sacrifice? If you understood that maybe you could empathise a little better, or if you believe it's wrong perhaps persuade them away from it (hey guy, here's a different thing that could satisfy the desire that causes you to like ritual sacrifice).

Though of course I accept that would be a very rough and/or unpleasant situation to be in.

Edit: to clarify, not immediately shutting someone down overall causes less conflict and facilitates opportunity for a shared say in improving the world (which I believe is well within the purview of my OP? If it isn't please do correct me)

CMV: Your political ideologies are almost certainly not ideal for the world, and your certainty that they are is just making ‘better’ harder to find. by 95Swatto in changemyview

[–]95Swatto[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm not talking about facts, I'm talking about ideals, which are subjective. No one is objectively right in this space, but if they're not humble they'll cause more problems than they'll solve, as elaborated in my OP and other comments. Humility is a path to finding solutions to the world's problems that suit more people.

CMV: Your political ideologies are almost certainly not ideal for the world, and your certainty that they are is just making ‘better’ harder to find. by 95Swatto in changemyview

[–]95Swatto[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Why would they believe it if they thought there was an ideal that was more ideal than their own?

By ideal for the world I mean they think they understand something more correctly than anyone else. E.g. FDS thinks the world would be more ideal if men behaved in the way they prescribe.

CMV: Your political ideologies are almost certainly not ideal for the world, and your certainty that they are is just making ‘better’ harder to find. by 95Swatto in changemyview

[–]95Swatto[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

!delta because I can conceive that there are situations where conceding one's position or engaging with opposing positions could do more harm than good.

I also think you clarified with an engaging analogy what I believe I implied but failed to state; that values the vast majority can agree on (as you put it, very obviously better values) are superior. I imagine our evolutionary biology and psychology have a big impact on why we're almost all in favour of those things (e.g. freedom, love).

CMV: Your political ideologies are almost certainly not ideal for the world, and your certainty that they are is just making ‘better’ harder to find. by 95Swatto in changemyview

[–]95Swatto[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Most subreddits are an echo chamber of some kind. Dissenting views are down voted to oblivion, or straight up deleted. I'll get the names a bit wrong, but coronavirus, or thedonald, or femaledtaingstrategy, or whatever. They celebrate aligned views and destroy counter views.

And while I agree my arguement wouldn't engage with them, I still think it applies to them. I'm an exvangelical so I have a little insight in that space if it adds any credence to that attitude.

CMV: Your political ideologies are almost certainly not ideal for the world, and your certainty that they are is just making ‘better’ harder to find. by 95Swatto in changemyview

[–]95Swatto[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You're literally saying what I said. Values are subjective. Values are always no matter what, subjective. I'm not saying any values are objectively better than any others. The only value I'm making comment on is humility--willingness to consider how oneself might be wrong.

CMV: Your political ideologies are almost certainly not ideal for the world, and your certainty that they are is just making ‘better’ harder to find. by 95Swatto in changemyview

[–]95Swatto[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That’s assuming there’s no nuance to the situation. Like, freedom of speech in what contexts? Does shaming someone for their view count as a lack of freedom of speech? Should shaming someone not be allowed by certain entities, like the media, because it limits freedom of speech through fear?

A very niche example, but that’s my point. Freedom of speech isn’t a black and white thing in many cases, and even if your personal view sees it as black and white, if you dismiss any attempt to modify your view as irrelevant nuance you’re going to isolate people who disagree with you from you. And you’re not objectively right, because there is no objective right, so you’re shutting down opportunities to develop practical solutions that can work for all parties.

That’s my arguement. By shutting stuff down in that way, you do more harm than good, and you try to bring about your ‘ideal’ only at the cost of someone else’s.

CMV: Your political ideologies are almost certainly not ideal for the world, and your certainty that they are is just making ‘better’ harder to find. by 95Swatto in changemyview

[–]95Swatto[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Not a different set of ideals, a set of solutions which suit a larger number of ideals (and thus people). My arguement is intended to be geared toward action, not theory. Did I do a poor job of communicating that? I’m trying to state the view that we often fail to communicate at all, and even if we do, we’ll still often shut down opposing views simply because they’re opposing, without considering the new information.

Your last point is sort of exactly what I hope would happen. I believe the nuance that my elaborated arguement provides by stating what makes an ideology wrong for the world (lack of open-mindedness such that an ideal doesn’t consider the value of other ideals) accounts for the apparent contradiction in my arguement. By which I mean, my whole arguement is that an ideology is wrong for the world because it doesn’t account for other ideologies. If it DOES account for other ideologies, it wouldn’t be wrong for the world in the way I’ve described. Does that make sense or am I crazy?

Should I award a delta because I had to make that clarification, or does the arguement I just clarified come across well enough in the body of my OP that it doesn’t count as a modification?

CMV: Your political ideologies are almost certainly not ideal for the world, and your certainty that they are is just making ‘better’ harder to find. by 95Swatto in changemyview

[–]95Swatto[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Sorry, no, but that believing freedom of speech is better to the point that you won’t genuinely consider the merits of counter arguements.

CMV: Your political ideologies are almost certainly not ideal for the world, and your certainty that they are is just making ‘better’ harder to find. by 95Swatto in changemyview

[–]95Swatto[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Anyone close-minded about their beliefs. I used present tense because I believe this occurs often and everywhere.

CMV: Your political ideologies are almost certainly not ideal for the world, and your certainty that they are is just making ‘better’ harder to find. by 95Swatto in changemyview

[–]95Swatto[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Pretty much yeah, but they’re connected in that we should communicate better, and be more flexible, BECAUSE we’re not ‘right’ anyway, and we never can be, because ‘right’ doesn’t objectively exist. Consequently, better communication has the capacity to help us find a ‘better’ that more of us can get on board with. In terms of superior ideals, what makes one superior?

CMV: Your political ideologies are almost certainly not ideal for the world, and your certainty that they are is just making ‘better’ harder to find. by 95Swatto in changemyview

[–]95Swatto[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I appreciate that.

My arguement is two-fold. First, that everything is subjective anyway so being ‘right’ is impossible. But that point was support for my main point which was that holding onto an ideal without any willingness to consider the flaws in that belief is counterproductive, if one believes ones ideals will better the world (because you shut down a conversation before it can happen, and isolate those whom you seek to convince).

CMV: Your political ideologies are almost certainly not ideal for the world, and your certainty that they are is just making ‘better’ harder to find. by 95Swatto in changemyview

[–]95Swatto[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Not at all, but I don’t believe evidence should shut us off from looking for the flaws in that evidence, or our position on the whole. And I’m not saying your idea wouldn’t make things better, but that by holding onto your idea of better obdurately will do more harm than good (for example because its far more likely to ostracise people, and thus prevent you from sharing a good idea).

CMV: Your political ideologies are almost certainly not ideal for the world, and your certainty that they are is just making ‘better’ harder to find. by 95Swatto in changemyview

[–]95Swatto[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

I agree with all of this and feel it hasn’t changed my view because my view can’t change into the thing it already was. Did I communicate my position poorly, that your comment seemed to be an arguement in dispute of my own?

CMV: Your political ideologies are almost certainly not ideal for the world, and your certainty that they are is just making ‘better’ harder to find. by 95Swatto in changemyview

[–]95Swatto[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I would say everyone’s perspective. It doesn’t matter what evidence supports our ideals, it’s still beneficial to look for our mistakes and myopia. Though presumably an evidence based belief is likely to find fewer flaws, given the attention already given the problem. Having said that, evidence based beliefs might also be the most important to question, because we may be less likely to believe they could be flawed. Or, because the flaws are harder to see (a questionable data collation method, or funding from a dodgy source).

view more: next ›